R.K. AGRAWAL, J., PRESIDENT

1.       Delay condoned.

2.       This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to the Act), has been filed by Bathinda Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as BDA) and its Estate Officer, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint under the Act, against the order dated 14.03.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 137 of 2014.  By the Impugned Order, while accepting the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioners herein, the State Commission has modified the Order dated 29.11.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Complaint Case No. 210 of 16.05.2013, preferred by the Complainant/Respondent herein.  By the said Order, while accepting the Complaint, the District Commission had directed the Petitioners to jointly and severally refund the remaining deposited amount to the Complainant/Respondent against plots No. 234 and 235, after deducting 2% charges, along with interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.18,45,106/- w.e.f. 19.07.2009 till the date of payment, i.e. 12.03.2012, as also ₹10,000/- as compensation and costs.  However, by the Impugned Order, the State Commission has modified the Order passed by the District Commission, inasmuch as it has held that the Petitioners herein are entitled to deduct 5% out of the amount deposited towards forfeiture with regard to the plots in question.

3.       The facts in brief, leading to the filing of the present Revision Petition, are that in pursuance of an Advertisement, issued by the Petitioners to the effect that auction of shops, SCF and residential plots in Phase-II, Model Town, Bathinda, would be held on 16.07.2008, the Complainant/Respondent, who intended to purchase plots for personal use of her family, participated in the auction.  In the auction, she was the highest bidder and, accordingly, plots no. 234 and 235 were allotted to her, upon which she deposited sums of ₹5,00,000/- and ₹5,15,000/-, being 10% of the total cost of the plots, with the Petitioners on the said date.  Further sums of ₹7,47,000/- and ₹7,73,000/-, being 15% of the price of the plots, were also deposited by the Complainant/Respondent on 21.10.2008. Thereafter, the Complainant/ Respondent incurred huge amount on the treatment of her mother-in-law, on account of which her financial position deteriorated and on 26.03.2009 she preferred an Application, seeking refund of the amount deposited, before Opposite Party/Petitioner No.2 herein, the Estate Officer of BDA.  Despite repeated requests of the Complainant/Respondent, who was in dire need of money for treatment of her mother-in-law, for refund of the deposited amount along with interest, no action was taken by the Petitioners in the matter.   Subsequently, on 13.09.2011, the Estate Officer ordered for refunding the amount deposited by the Complainant/Respondent, after deducting/forfeiting 10% of the total consideration, and interest thereon.  Aggrieved with the same, the Complainant/Respondent filed an appeal before the Additional Chief Administrator of BDA on 14.09.2011.  Vide its order dated 17.10.2011, the said Authority reduced the forfeiture amount from 10% to 5%.  Accordingly, vide cheques dated 12.03.2012, sums of ₹9,03,655/- and ₹9,41,441/- were refunded to the Complainant/Respondent, after deducting 5% forfeiture amount.  While accepting the said payments made by the Petitioners, under protest, the Complainant/Respondent again approached them with the request to pay the total deposited amount with interest but of no avail.  In response to some RTI queries, the Complainant/Respondent came to know that vide their order dated 19.06.2009, the Petitioners had ordered for refund of the deposited amount after forfeiting 2% of the total consideration.  However, the Petitioners refunded the deposited amount after deduction of 5% forfeiture amount in terms of order dated 17.10.2011.  Hence, the afore-noted Complaint, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Petitioners on the aforesaid counts, came to be filed before the District Commission, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein.   

4.       Upon notice, the Petitioners contested the Complaint by filing their joint Written Version.  By way of preliminary objections, it was contended on their behalf that as the Complainant/Respondent herein had not availed their services and aggrieved with the order of Additional Chief Administrator, BDA, Bathinda, dated 17.10.2011, she had not filed any revision petition, as provided under Section 45 of the Punjab Regional & Town Planning & Development Act, 1995 (1995 Act), before the State Government, the Complaint was not maintainable. 

5.       On merits, while admitting that the Complainant/Respondent had applied for cancellation of allotment of the plots in question, it was denied on behalf of the Petitioners that they had not taken any action on the Application preferred by the Complainant, seeking refund, inasmuch as after consideration the said request was accepted by the Estate Officer of BDA, who vide his order dated 13.09.2011, ordered for refund of the earnest money after deducting 10% as per the 1995 Act.  On an appeal, filed by the Complainant/Respondent against the said order of the Estate Officer, the Additional Chief Administrator, BDA, Bathinda, vide his order dated 17.10.2011, reduced the deduction from 10% to 5% and, on account of non-filing of any revision petition by the Complainant/Respondent even after expiry of the period of limitation provided therefor, the said order had become final. The payments, which were made to the Complainant/Respondent as refund of the deposited amounts on 12.03.2012, were made in full and final settlement of her claim, without any unnecessary delay. As regards the RTI query made by the Complainant/Respondent and the order dated 19.06.2009, passed by the Estate Officer, BDA, directing for refund of the earnest money to the Complainant/Respondent after 2% deduction, it was averred that the said order was found against the Rules and Regulations of the 1995 Act, and hence the matter was referred to the Chief Administrator, BDA, and thereafter aforesaid fresh order was passed by the Estate Officer, BDA on 13.09.2011.  In view of the same, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners and the Complaint deserved to be dismissed.

6.       On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the Parties before it, as noted above, the District Commission accepted the Complaint and issued the afore-noted directions to Petitioners.

7.       Aggrieved with the Order passed by the District Commission, the Petitioners carried the matter further in Appeal to the State Commission, which accepted their Appeal and enhanced the amount of deduction towards forfeiture from 2%, as directed by the District Commission, to 5% and upheld the remaining directions issued by the District Commission.  Hence, the present Revision Petition by the Petitioners.       

8.       We have heard learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the material on record, including the Orders passed by the Fora below.  

9.       Learned Counsel for the Petitioners stated that though the State Commission considered the grounds taken in the Appeal, preferred by them, but imposed unwarranted liability to pay to the Complainant/Respondent interest @ 9% per annum from 19.07.2009.  The Complainant/Respondent had accepted the Appellate Order dated 17.10.2011 of the Additional Chief Administrator, BDA, whereby the amount of forfeiture was reduced from 10% to 5% and an amount of Rs.9,03,655/- had been refunded against Plot No. 234 and further amount of Rs.9,41,441/- had been refunded against Plot No. 235, vide cheques dated 12.03.2012.  However, the Complainant/Respondent did not avail the statutory remedy of filing a revision petition under the 1995 Act against the said Order.  The State Commission, therefore, was not justified in passing the Impugned Order, whereby it accepted the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioners, and enhanced the amount of forfeiture from 2%, as directed by the District Commission, to 5% while upholding the rest of the directions given by the District Commission, including the direction to pay interest @ 9% per annum.  The direction to pay interest is unwarranted liability at the cost of the public funds though there was no deficiency in service or corresponding default on the part of the Petitioners.  Therefore, the Impugned Order be set aside as far as the interest @ 9% is concerned.

10.     On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent justified the Orders passed by the District Commission and the State Commission and stated that the same are based on proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the Parties and need no interference.  

11.     The only issue to be considered in this case is whether the Fora below were justified in awarding interest @ 9% per annum on the amount to be refunded to the Complainant/Respondent or not.  Vide her Application dated 16.03.2009, the Complainant/Respondent requested for refund of the amount deposited by her and cancellation of the allotment of the plots in question made in her favour.  Had the Petitioners considered the request made by the Complainant/Respondent and refunded the amount deposited by her at that time, there would have been no question of paying any interest.  However, it was only on 12.03.2012, as admitted by the Petitioners, that the amount was refunded to the Complainant/Respondent, pursuant to the decision dated 17.10.2011 taken by the Additional Chief Administrator, BDA, reducing the amount of forfeiture from 10% to 5%.  Clearly, there was a delay of three years on the part of the Petitioners in doing so, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Further, both the Fora below have not awarded any other compensation except for awarding interest @ 9% per annum on the amount to be refunded to the Complainant/Respondent.  Though the District Commission had awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant/Respondent as compensation and costs but actually it meant for litigation costs.  Had it been towards compensation also, the District Commission would have specifically observed that the same was awarded as compensation towards mental agony, harassment, monetary loss etc., which is not so in the present case.  In this view of the matter and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the Case, it cannot be said that the direction given by the District Commission to pay interest on the amount deposited by the Complainant/Respondent and affirmed by the State Commission was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.  That being the position, in our considered opinion, both the Fora below were perfectly justified in awarding interest on the amount to be refunded to the Complainant/Respondent.  There is no illegality or perversity in the Orders passed by the Fora below.   

12.     Even otherwise, it is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022] that the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Orders passed by the Fora Below in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Orders.  The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted as under:- 

“9.  It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

13.     Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. and Ors. - (2022) 9 SCC 31  while affirming its earlier view taken in the Case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company – (2011) 11 SCC 269  that the National Commission has no right to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts of the Fora below in its Revisional Jurisdiction, has held as under:- 

“  At this stage, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence on record the District Forum as well as the State Commission concurrently found that the car delivered was used car. Such findings of facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission were not required to be interfered by the National Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission was exercising the revisional jurisdiction vested under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.”

14.  In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Orders passed by the Fora below in Revisional Jurisdiction u/s 21 (b) of the Act.  The present Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.